IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gjagec/358646.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Husbandry System Information on Consumer Willingness to Pay for Dairy Products From Cow-Calf-Contact Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Uehleke, Reinhard
  • Klink-Lehmann, Jeanette
  • Hüttel, Silke

Abstract

This study investigates consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for dairy products from a production system with cow-calf-contact (CCC) based calf management. Our results provide insights into the extent to which consumer-driven change towards such a more animal friendly production practice is viable in Germany. We test the influence of three communication strategies on the WTP for dairy products from a CCC-based calf management production system using a hypothetical contingent valuation survey on a sample of the German internet-using population. We apply a between-subject design with random exposure to one of the communication strategies. Results indicate that consumers are willing to pay an average 20% markup for dairy products from a CCC-based production with a minimum of three months of suckling. Additional information on the benefits of cow-calf interaction for the calf increases the probability of consumers expressing a positive WTP by 8 percentage points and, given a positive WTP, increases stated markups by 16% on average. Information on other consumers’ purchase behaviour or the innovativeness of the production system did not affect stated WTP in our sample. The results offer a potential upper bound for other CCC production systems, e.g., using foster cows. We conclude that information on livestock benefits in consumer communication could raise acceptance and support transitions towards more animal friendly production systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Uehleke, Reinhard & Klink-Lehmann, Jeanette & Hüttel, Silke, 2025. "The Effect of Husbandry System Information on Consumer Willingness to Pay for Dairy Products From Cow-Calf-Contact Systems," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 74, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:358646
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.358646
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/358646/files/1268_Uehleke_et_al..pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.358646?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sheth, Jagdish N. & Newman, Bruce I. & Gross, Barbara L., 1991. "Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 159-170, March.
    2. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2007. "Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 807-814, September.
    3. Rainer Winkelmann & Stefan Boes, 2006. "Analysis of Microdata," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-540-29607-2, July.
    4. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Colin Vance, 2017. "Mitigating Hypothetical Bias: Evidence on the Effects of Correctives from a Large Field Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 777-796, November.
    5. Giuseppe Nocella & Lionel Hubbard & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 275-297.
    6. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    7. Simona Naspetti & Serena Mandolesi & Jeroen Buysse & Terhi Latvala & Phillipa Nicholas & Susanne Padel & Ellen J. Loo & Raffaele Zanoli, 2021. "Consumer perception of sustainable practices in dairy production," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-26, December.
    8. Marjolein C. J. Caniëls & Wim Lambrechts & Johannes (Joost) Platje & Anna Motylska-Kuźma & Bartosz Fortuński, 2021. "50 Shades of Green: Insights into Personal Values and Worldviews as Drivers of Green Purchasing Intention, Behaviour, and Experience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-18, April.
    9. Clark, Beth & Stewart, Gavin B. & Panzone, Luca A. & Kyriazakis, Ilias & Frewer, Lynn J., 2017. "Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 112-127.
    10. Mark Andor & Manuel Frondel & Colin Vance, 2014. "Mitigating Hypothetical Bias – Evidence on the Effects of Correctives from a Large Field Study," Ruhr Economic Papers 0480, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    11. Manning, Willard G. & Mullahy, John, 2001. "Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 461-494, July.
    12. Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2018. "Fair to the cow or fair to the farmer? The preferences of conventional milk buyers for ethical attributes of milk," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 223-239.
    13. repec:zbw:rwirep:0480 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Cragg, John G, 1971. "Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(5), pages 829-844, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2018. "Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Bhardwaj, Seema & Sreen, Naman & Das, Manish & Chitnis, Asmita & Kumar, Sushant, 2023. "Product specific values and personal values together better explains green purchase," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    3. Usala, Cristian & Primerano, Ilaria & Santelli, Francesco & Ragozini, Giancarlo, 2024. "The more the better? How degree programs’ variety affects university students’ churn risk," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    4. Odermatt, Reto & Stutzer, Alois, 2018. "Tobacco Control Policies and Smoking Behavior in Europe: More Than Trends?," Working papers 2018/24, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    5. Salmon, Claire & Tanguy, Jeremy, 2016. "Rural Electrification and Household Labor Supply: Evidence from Nigeria," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 48-68.
    6. Farrell, Susan & Manning, Willard G. & Finch, Michael D., 2003. "Alcohol dependence and the price of alcoholic beverages," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 117-147, January.
    7. Ching-Hua Yeh & Monika Hartmann, 2021. "To Purchase or Not to Purchase? Drivers of Consumers’ Preferences for Animal Welfare in Their Meat Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-25, August.
    8. Mark A. Andor, Manuel Frondel, and Colin Vance, 2017. "Germanys Energiewende: A Tale of Increasing Costs and Decreasing Willingness-To-Pay," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(KAPSARC S).
    9. Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Zawojska, Ewa & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Louviere, Jordan, 2018. "Mitigating strategic misrepresentation of values in open-ended stated preference surveys by using negative reinforcement," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 153-166.
    10. Johanna Lena Dahlhausen & Cam Rungie & Jutta Roosen, 2018. "Value of labeling credence attributes—common structures and individual preferences," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 741-751, November.
    11. Ruikun An & Feng Wang & Jiro Sakurai & Hideki Kitagawa, 2024. "Willing or Not? Rural Residents’ Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Conservation in Economically Underdeveloped Regions: A Case Study in China’s Qinling National Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-17, March.
    12. Sérgio Luís Castro Júnior & Eduardo Eugênio Spers & Hermes Moretti Ribeiro Silva & Iran José Oliveira Silva, 2025. "Antecedents of the intention to buy animal welfare certified products: A study with brazilian consumers," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 22(2), pages 295-325, June.
    13. Akshay Shanker & Sacha Vidler, 2014. "Offsets to compulsory superannuation: do people consciously choose their level of retirement saving?," CAMA Working Papers 2014-65, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    14. Blackman, Allen & Qin, Ping & Yang, Jun, 2020. "How costly are driving restrictions? Contingent valuation evidence from Beijing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    15. Lai, Yufeng & Yue, Chengyan, 2020. "Consumer Willingness to pay for Organic and Animal Welfare Product Attributes: Do Experimental Results Align with Market Data?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304328, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Heres-Del-Valle, David & Niemeier, Deb, 2011. "CO2 emissions: Are land-use changes enough for California to reduce VMT? Specification of a two-part model with instrumental variables," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 150-161, January.
    17. Ahlert, Marlies & Breyer, Friedrich & Schwettmann, Lars, 2016. "How you ask is what you get: Framing effects in willingness-to-pay for a QALY," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 40-48.
    18. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Marco Horvath, 2021. "Consequentiality, Elicitation Formats, and the Willingness to Pay for Green Electricity: Evidence from Germany," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 97(3), pages 626-640.
    19. Bigerna, Simona & Choudhary, Piyush & Kumar Jain, Nikunj & Micheli, Silvia & Polinori, Paolo, 2022. "Avoiding unanticipated power outages: households’ willingness to pay in India," MPRA Paper 114160, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Zeng, Qiyan & He, Zhipeng & Zeng, Yinchu, 2023. "Public procurement, consumers' preference and poverty alleviation through consumption," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PA).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:358646. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iahubde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.